Why I could never follow Luther.

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith.

As I understand your post, there are two concerns here:

 (1) the various histortical challenges faced by the Catholic Church from 33AD - 400AD, 1378AD - 1517AD and 1517AD to the present, and 
 (2) damage done to the Body of Christ during these times so that all are reduced.

There may be a misunderstanding, so let me address the issues as I see them and then if you would respond, we can see where we stand on mutual understandings.

The Catholic Church did not spring from the Mind of God fully developed - the Apostles were still worshiping in the Temple after the Ascension. There was no real division of responsibilities (e.g., the creation of the role of Deacon [Acts 9]) and the development of actual doctrine was not a smooth process by human standards - as we see from the Judiazers and the resolution of circumcision by Peter [Acts 15]. Christ did not leave a Policy and Procedure Manual when He Ascended and the Holy Spirit did not deliver the Bible on Pentecost Sunday.

God made a decison early on to work through sinful man - even before he was sinful! So, not only are there internal difficulties [the lying couple of Ananias and Sapphira] and the persecution from Jewish and Roman authorities. So while we had many written works that claimed to be from saintly people - such was not the case when we find that the first ‘Bible’ compiled and edited by Marcian was essentially an exercise in Dualism. To be brief, about 400AD the Catholic Church had identified all the Canon - all the Books of the Bible (their order and their contents) - and under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church proclaimed that these Books were Divinely Inspired. As far as the Bible is concerned, this status remained essentially unchallenged until Luther’s attack beginning in about 1517. Note the Eastern Chruch accepted these Books in 400AD.

This is pure speculation on my part … but… you know, I just do not think all of those guys who were demanding circumcision of the new Gentile converts changed their minds after Paul told the members in attendance at the First Council of Jerusalem. Human nature just isn’t quite like that…but, that is just an opinion. If we exclude this, then I really do not get to a full scale internal doctrinal dispute in the rest of the NT . We must actually wait about 325AD for the Arian heresy to grip the Church in a major controversy and then about a hundered years later, we are facing the Nestorian heresy. it goes on, but, I think these issues illustrate that what were once faithful followers of Christ through the Church He founded on Peter (Mattt 16:18) went another way. And, yes, this had a negative impact on the Unity that Christ prayed for (John 17:21). Did it destroy the Catholic Church - the Bride of Christ? No. Did the Great Schism in about 1378AD negatively impact on the Catholic Church? Yes. Was it destroyed? No. And, then we move to the period beginning in 1517 - a Europe in turmoil (and had been for many years) with what appears to be a lax clergy indulging themselves while scandalizing the faithful.

Luther’s schism (and those he spawned: Calvin, Henry VIII, even Anabaptists) was probably the most damaging of all. I think if we were talking about a purely human organization, like a civic or political club, the Catholic Church would have been quickly destroyed. Virtually all of Europe was in shambles - and this was before the 30 Year’s War! But, look at what we have, the Catholic Church is still teaching the same doctrines - Baptism is necessary (and infants are truly welcomed!), sins can be forgiven by the properly ordained minister of God, the Priest, Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist (Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity), etc. The Chruch is also standing strong agianst same-sex ‘unions’, condemning homosexual acts, condemning abortion, embryonic stem cell research, artificial contraception and ponography. Just look around and see how many churches are singing different tunes on these major social issues.

Different ages in the Catholic Church have certainly brought on different challenges. But, the take home message is that the Bible established in 400AD contains only the Inspired Word of God (I think you have the abridged version…). And, while the sinful actions of many church leaders have caused many problems - none of them taught error. I really think that is the take home message.

Now, are we in agreement?

God bless

I think this is where we misunderstand each other. You believe that the Catholic Church united with the Bishop of Rome that most everyone refers to as the Roman Catholic Church are one in the same that developed the biblical canon around 400. The fact is that the church that existed in 1500 follows to exist today. If the church in 400 was the one holy catholic apostolic church, it ceased to be that immediately with the split between East and West. And again the church became less with the Reformation.

If you follow Paul’s view of the Church as being the Body of Christ, then the split between East and West could be seen as the mutual amputation of the body from the waste down or the waste up depending on ones perspective. And again with the Reformation we have something akin to losing an arm.

We have all become remnant churches. And the Body of Christ is splintered and regardless of what Rome thinks, it is without legs and an arm.

 

[gracelife]

Now Luther was at one time part of the RCC. Now if the Church is one, and was here long before Luther how could there possibly be more than One Church?

There is one church. Yet it is terribly divided by much misunderstanding amongst men.

Lord have mercy.

 

[gracelife]

1.) For about 1,500 years (prior to Luther’s 95 Thesis in 1517) the Catholic Church had Seven Sacraments - Luther decided his followers only needed 2.
Not quite true. Can you provide a Lutheran reference for this statement?

2.) Luther decided that Scripture Alone is the governing principle and that people could read the Bible and decide what they wanted to decide.
Again, not quite true. Reference?

On of the problems with evaluating one’s self is that unless there is a mirror or another person around, it is easy to miss something. For example, you may run a comb or brush through your hair - but, to see if your hair is the way you want it, you need something outside of yourself - like a mirror.
Yes, the Law in Holy Scriptures is the mirror. What is your mirror?

 

[gracelife]

But, look at what we have, the Catholic Church is still teaching the same doctrines - Baptism is necessary (and infants are truly welcomed!),
Lutheran’s believe the same.

sins can be forgiven by the properly ordained minister of God, Christ is Really Present in the Eucharist (Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity), etc.
Lutheran’s believe the same.

The Chruch is also standing strong agianst same-sex ‘unions’, condemning homosexual acts, condemning abortion, embryonic stem cell research, artificial contraception and ponography. Just look around and see how many churches are singing different tunes on these major social issues.
There are a few other than the RCC.

 

[Janet1983]

Every Protestant to some degree or another follow Luther.

Only to the degree that Luther was following Christ I’d say. There are things that Luther said and did that arose out of frustration and anger and he wrote pamphlets (especially about the Jews) that hardly any Lutheran could agree with today.
Luther was in no way perfect and during the course of his life he did become a frustrated, nagging old man. That is common knowledge. Therefore I wouldn’t consider it to be a compliment at all to be called a follower of Luther. I do not wish to follow a man who is very fallible as history shows.
Yes, he did have a couple of valid claims about wrongful doings within the Church (considering that the papal bull did not condemn all 95 theses should be evidence of that), but he was still a man. Had someone been able to refute him by means of Scripture and reason at the trial in Worms the reformation surely wouldn’t have ended the way it did. He surely was subject to pride in the long run, but so were the men who accused him.

It is like a Father who built a house and wished that all His children would live in this house but one daughter said “Much as I love you Dad, I cannot stand my brother so even though it is your wish that I remain under this roof, NO CAN DO. Then she pitches a tent on the lawn”

I believe to be following Jesus Christ in His Church. I do not believe that this One Church is equivalent with the Catholic Church, but I do believe that there are true Christians within the Catholic Church just as I believe them to be in any other Church. The visible Church are all those who enter into a building in a more or less regular manner. Among those sheep are also goats who just enter the buildings, participate in rituals, but have never been regenerated.
The invisible Church is the One True Church Jesus Christ founded and it consists off all true Christians, all those who are members of the body of Christ.
I cannot see into your heart, but I assume that your intentions are noble and that you are only wishing for my best. I cannot look into your soul, but I assume that you are as much a Christian as I am and that you seek the Lord.
I do believe both of us to be part of the body of Christ.

---

To claim you are different from others is obvious and of little benefit for one wanting to discuss differences.

I was trying to remain on topic, but I will surely debate on the subject. As far as I remember I was told that my logic was inconsistent and flawed and that is what I was asked about. I had not seen any reason to divert yet.

To reject the Church founded on Peter (Matt 16:18) to reject the Eucharist (John 6 50-70), to reject Confession (John 6:20) and fail to provide a reason simply frustrates the goal of a discussion group. To reject the idea that you are following Luther - yet conform to his way (not The Way established by Christ) is simply a contradiction. And, then we get back to those annoying aspects of internal consistency and logical discourse.

If I remember correctly Luther did not even reject all of the above. He actually spoke highly of confession, even though he did not call it a sacrament.
I do not believe that the Church was founded upon Peter, but upon Christ, though I too do refer to Matthew 16:18.
I do believe the last supper to be symbolic in John 6.
“I am the bread of life,” Jesus told them. “No one who comes to Me will ever be hungry, and no one who believes in Me will ever be thirsty again.”
I do believe that we have to come to Him and believe in Him in order to have eternal life.
Concerning confession I believe that it is a good thing for the healing process to confess my sins to another. I do not believe however that this person can forgive any sin, except the ones I committed against them. I have to confess my sin to God. While a sin may be against my neighbour, it is always against God and it is Him who can and will forgive.

The Catholic Church was far from perfect in 1517 - and that statement could be made today in 2010 with equal validity.

Agreed.

My belief in the Catholic Church as the One True Church founded by Christ is based on Faith and that Faith is not a wild fling in the dark, but one based on solid evidence.

I respect that you believe this to be true. If you wish to engage in further discussion, I have given you a couple of points above. It is up to you to discuss whichever point suits you best.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gracelife,

OK … I do not think I pulled this out of thin air…

1.) For about 1,500 years (prior to Luther’s 95 Thesis in 1517) the Catholic Church had Seven Sacraments - Luther decided his followers only needed 2.
Not quite true. Can you provide a Lutheran reference for this statement?

According to this site, there are ONLY TWO SACRAMENTS: Baptism and Communion. Here is the site reference: saintaquinas.com/Lutherans.html

Wiki identified two sacraments and then a third was added. Here is the link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism

I am not sure what you mean by quite. Are you saying that two sacraments is not quite right (e.g., there is only 1 Sacrament or there are 3 Sacraments) or that Luther did not quite decide this matter on the Sacraments?

2.) Luther decided that Scripture Alone is the governing principle and that people could read the Bible and decide what they wanted to decide.
Again, not quite true. Reference?

Same site reference - and here is the quote:

God: Trinitarian Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Sacraments: Baptism, Communion
Salvation: Saved through Faith alone, Saved by Grace alone
Scriptures: 66 books, supernaturally inspired, Follows the premise of Sola Fide
Dogmatic Origins: Sola Scriptura, doctrines defined by the Book of Concord
Church: reformation of the church catholic, Lutheranism is considered the true religion but other Christians can be true believers

The Wike site identified Scripture and Faith Alone: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheranism

Without being too technical, I think my previous post provided a fair and basically accurate statement. If there is an error - and my references are not Lutheran sites - but, the ones I went to did not really provide the information I needed to respond to your question. So, if you have better references (showing that I have made errors in what I have said) than please share them.

On of the problems with evaluating one’s self is that unless there is a mirror or another person around, it is easy to miss something. For example, you may run a comb or brush through your hair - but, to see if your hair is the way you want it, you need something outside of yourself - like a mirror.
Yes, the Law in Holy Scriptures is the mirror. What is your mirror?

Well… your response is a bit vague. Did you know that Holy Scripture contains the Mosaic Law. Are you referring to that? It also contains 10 Commandments and the Beatitudes. How about these? Christ told us to love God with all our being and our neighbor as ourself. Does this qualify as, “…Law in Holy Scripture…”? But, don’t stop there!

When Christ founded His Chruch on Peter, the one Luther left, Christ gave Peter the authority to bind and lose (Matt 16:18) - and further - Christ told His Apostles, “He who hears you hears me…” (John 5:24). So, in answer to your question - the same organization that gave you the Bible (I think you now have an abridged version ) is the one that faithfully teaches the faithful how to follow Christ. My mirror is the Catholic Church - its teachings are the true reflection of God’s Will.

God bless

gracelife:

 

[benedictus2]

There is one church. Yet it is terribly divided by much misunderstanding amongst men.

Lord have mercy.

In one brief sentence you have just said that Jesus is a liar and therefore not God.

 

[benedictus2]

I think this is where we misunderstand each other. You believe that the Catholic Church united with the Bishop of Rome that most everyone refers to as the Roman Catholic Church are one in the same that developed the biblical canon around 400. The fact is that the church that existed in 1500 follows to exist today. If the church in 400 was the one holy catholic apostolic church, it ceased to be that immediately with the split between East and West.

The East - West schism did not cause the annihilation of the the Catholic Church.
This is the fairy tale protestants tell themselves to justify their own schism from Christ’s Church.

Christ established only one Church. If someone is in schism, it is in schism against that one Church.

And again the church became less with the Reformation.

No it did not. The Church may have lost rebellious members but it did not become less.
To this day, the 1st generation Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

If you follow Paul’s view of the Church as being the Body of Christ, then the split between East and West could be seen as the mutual amputation of the body from the waste down or the waste up depending on ones perspective. And again with the Reformation we have something akin to losing an arm.

No it is not. As St Augustine said; Christ’s Body may be sick and covered in sores but there is no need to chop off its members.

Those Churches that have separated from the Catholic Church have taught one form of heresy or another right from the beginning. Christ promised that He will send the Holy Spiirt to guide His Church into Truth. If we affirm that Jesus is God and did keep that promise then those churches who taught heresy is obviously not Christ’s Church. To this day, only the Catholic Church has upheld the true teachings of Christ.

We have all become remnant churches.

You have. We haven’t. Unless like Gracelife you have concluded that Jesus lied or else was incapable of keeping His promise.

And the Body of Christ is splintered and regardless of what Rome thinks, it is without legs and an arm.

An arm or leg has certainly been cut off from the body. A limb cut off from the body can only die and decay unless it is grafter back to the Body.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Janet1983,

You certainly did provide a number of points for discussion. Even though this was Benedictus2’s area … and, if it is agreeable, let me start at the very beginning of your post and we can work forward as we progress from there.

Only to the degree that Luther was following Christ I’d say.

[This was in response to Benedictus2’s statement ("Every Protestant to some degree or another follow Luther.)]

I think we would do well to analyze this statement that Luther was following Christ when he broke away from the teachings of the Catholic Church - the Church Christ founded on Peter. (I will address your comments on this a little later).

There is no doubt that the personal practices of some of the Church’s leaders priot to 1517 were public scandals - and, I am sure that they have been justly judged for their lax ways. But the issue is Church teaching or doctrine - not the practices of some who wanted fleshly comforts insteat of the sacrifices necessary to follow Christ.

I mentioned prevously that for about 1500 years the Church had (and has to this day) Seven Sacraments. In the Lutheran church today there seems to be either 2 or 3 Sacraments (I am confident I will get a correction as the correct number shortly! ) In addition to Christ telling Peter he had the keys to the kingdom, Christ also told Peter whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven. The Catholic Church taught that there are Seven different Sacraments and each one is a visible sign and giver of God’s Grace to those who receive the Sacrament worthily. Luther was not following Christ when he took it on himself to ‘remove’ signs of Grace that Luther did not agree with. It is hard ot imagine Luther not establishing himself as his own pope in deciding various matters.

Of the Sacraments lists, Luther claimed Holy Communion but disputed tranasubstantiation and (unlike the Easter Othodox) has no valid priesthood where the Celebrant, acting in the Person of Christ, with the powers given in ordination, changes common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Your previous comment where you claim John 6 is speaking symbolically when Christ tells His listeners that they must eat the Flesh of the Son of Man if they are to have life in them. Furher Christ tells these people that His Flesh is real (not a symbol) food and His Blood is real drink. This is hardly the stuff of an analogy. Besides, have you ever heard of anyone walking out because an analogy was used? But, my explanations are rather cumbersome - here is a site that will take you directly to Catholic Commentary on John 6. Please read it (the entire chapter) because the early sections set the tone for the Eucharistic Discourse in that Christ is proving He has power over nature (feeding the 5,000 and calming the storm). I think you will find that Protestant commentaries on this chapter identify that Christ is God because of His power over nature, but turn their backs on all of the statements Christ makes about feeding on His Flesh by claiming (like the hard-hearted Jews Christ was talking to) He can not mean this.

Luther was perplexed by this - as a priest he once had the power to consecrate - but, he not only gave it up, he deluded his followers that he knew better on how this was to be done. Lutherans do not have the Real Presence - Jesus Christ, True God and True Man under the appearance of Bread and Wine.

Here is the entire quote (Matt 16:13-19), and notice: Christ does NOT say, “…Thou are Peter and upon myself I will build my church”. Compare this with your own abridged Bible and you will see it is the same.

**13
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” **

So, here we have all 12 Apostles gathered together with Jesus - and the Master asks them a question, and God the Father selects Peter and gives him the correct answer! Christ acknowledges this to the other Apostles and then confirms Peter as the leader - by giving him the keys (note: Christ did not hand out 12 sets of keys - just 1).

This is what Luther broke from - and he was obviously not following Christ if Christ set up Peter as the head. Now, there are other references that can be used. For example:

“There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32).” There are many more references you can get from this link: catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp.

Really, all Luther did was say he saw failure amongst the members of the Catholic Church and he left to follow his own image - not Christ.

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

Only to the degree that Luther was following Christ I’d say. There are things that Luther said and did that arose out of frustration and anger and he wrote pamphlets (especially about the Jews) that hardly any Lutheran could agree with today.

But I am not talking about following Luther’s actions. I am talking about following Luther’s teachings.

You are following Luther’s wrong theology so therefore you are following Luther.

And the construct He made of Christ is what you follow - which is not necessarily the real Christ.

Luther was in no way perfect and during the course of his life he did become a frustrated, nagging old man. That is common knowledge. Therefore I wouldn’t consider it to be a compliment at all to be called a follower of Luther. I do not wish to follow a man who is very fallible as history shows.

Bad behaviour come and go but false teachings stay unless we expose them for what they are.

You may not follow Luther’s bad behavior but you certainly follow his false teachings.

One thing you must remember is what Christ said about His Church- that is, that she will be led into Truth. Christ did not promise that she will be led into goodness, but to Truth.

Of the devil Christ said that he is the father of lies. Who ever gives false doctrine is following this father and therefore not following Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

I believe to be following Jesus Christ in His Church. I do not believe that this One Church is equivalent with the Catholic Church,

Scripture and History proves you wrong.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Again, I ask you to look at the example set by St. Catherine of Siena - see how she addressed the evils in the Catholic Church at the time and see the good that she brought about in her cooperation with the Grace of God.

Can you explain why Catherine of Sienna was such a great reformer of the church?

When she was alive there were two popes, when she died there were still two popes, 20 years after she died, there were three popes.

 

[Roy5]

I have mixed feelings about Luther. Let me sum up what I think he did and why.

 The medieval church had drifted badly into practices that suggested corruption. The priest Tetzel came along and deliberately led gullible people to think that giving money for the construction of St. Peter's could free their loved ones from purgatory more quickly. Luther was disgusted.

 But leading up to that Luther appears to have become troubled already by the emphasis on 'good works' - which meant primarily not so much acts of kindness and mercy but depending upon the church and the sacraments to escape hell. One day he was reading Romans where Paul said that we are saved by faith.

  Luther's protest was valid. But he went too far in the other direction - well, in my view. Faith is essential, but so are good works. By good works, frankly, I don't mean so much the sacraments but living loving lives - loving God and one another, as Christ commanded.

  The Pope and others of the church made a major mistake in condemning Luther so forcefully and quickly, alienating him further. Had the Council of Trent been held right away maybe the Reformation would not have happened.

  I'm actually glad it happened because it gives Christians many options, whether in doctrine or in liturgy. It helped bring about religious freedom and separation of church and state, both good ideas. Sadly, Luther's important contribution was compromised by his position during the Peasants' War and his diatribe against the Jews.

  But Luther was a brilliant, courageous and creative Christian, and we all ought to honor his memory and his work, whatever our church affiliation.

  God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and people of every creed, color and country. May religion become a bridge instead of a barrier.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mikeoffaith,

14th Century Italy was like no place else on earth. Trying to understand the politics of the various kingdoms in Italy and the Papal States - and how these groups interacted (usually physically) is its own subject. Luther’s German princes were somewhat similar (everyone wanted to be king of their own hill … while reaching out to conquer another hill!) It is only when you see what a political and military mess the area was in - that you really appreciate your own country in the 21st Century!

Here are my ideas as to why St. Catherine of Siena was such a great reformer.

(1) Catherine was the one that brought the seeds of unity to the factions. Now John 4:37 tells us that one sews and another will reap. Catherine was doing the sewing part of this process.

(2) She was especially favored by God - and lived a life of prayer and humility. She was about 31 years of age when the Great Schism began en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism and during her two remaining yeears on earth she worked tirelessly to get the competing popes (anti popes) to quickly resolved their differences. She succeeded in getting Gregory XI to return to Rome from France - and this was really a major accomplishment.

While it is always cool to see people like Gen Douglas McArthur … proclaim he would return - and then return … and then accept the surrender of Japan ending the war in the Pacific! Hey, while he did not do it all - he did many things year after year. God’s role for Catherine did not follow this type example.

I see her as having an impact on individuals whose hearts were as hard as their heads - and her good example worked miracles. You see, given our human nature’s burning desire to dig our heels in to a particular point of view (and Luther can give us the example here) Catherine was unique for getting the groups to move forward to reconcilliation. She has a special place in my heart when we think of getting fighting parties back to the table…

You’re right - about 20 years after she died … there was a resolution and the Catholic Church was back to one pope. St. Catherine of Siena, pray for us!

Hope this answers your quesiton.

God bless

Can you explain why Catherine of Sienna was such a great reformer of the church?

When she was alive there were two popes, when she died there were still two popes, 20 years after she died, there were three popes.

 

[benedictus2]

  The Pope and others of the church made a major mistake in condemning Luther so forcefully and quickly, alienating him further. Had the Council of Trent been held right away maybe the Reformation would not have happened.

The Reformation did not happen. Deformation did.

I’m actually glad it happened because it gives Christians many options, whether in doctrine or in liturgy.

That may be your opinon but hardly what Christ wanted. As a matter fact, it is very much against what Christ wanted. So on this one, I take Christ’s will anytime to your preference for options.

It helped bring about religious freedom and separation of church and state, both good ideas.

No it did not bring about religious freedom. Separation of Church and state it hardly brought about since Luther allied himself with the princes of the states who supported him. Protestantism of whatever variant the ruling royalty was became the enforced religion of the state and woe to anyone who remained Catholic. They were killed and tortured. But of course in your sanitized version of Protestant history, you would not know that.

Sadly, Luther’s important contribution was compromised by his position during the Peasants’ War and his diatribe against the Jews.

No it was not compromised by his position during the Peasant’s war. His position on the peasant’s war is a logical extension of his theology.

But Luther was a brilliant, courageous and creative Christian, and we all ought to honor his memory and his work, whatever our church affiliation.

Brilliant? Perhaps. Courageous? Maybe. Creative? Most certainly. He created a whole new set of doctrines.

God bless Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and people of every creed, color and country. May religion become a bridge instead of a barrier.

Religion will only be a bridge if there is only one, for then we will transcend race and colour because we will be of one Creed.

 

[benedictus2]

Can you explain why Catherine of Sienna was such a great reformer of the church?

When she was alive there were two popes, when she died there were still two popes, 20 years after she died, there were three popes.

There were claimants to the papacy but they were not Popes. My laying claim to the throne of the Queen of England does not make for two Queens of England.

St Catherine of Sienna wa such a great reformer because she did reform the Church. She was able to make the Pope return to his proper seat. And this she was able to do from within. Those who truly achieved the reformation were the ones who remained and worked for reform within the Church that is why they are now Saints : Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross and Ignatius of Loyola and later on Francis de Sales.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

Let me address one of the many issues you have identified in this post…

  I'm actually glad it happened because it gives Christians many options, whether in doctrine or in liturgy. It helped bring about religious freedom and separation of church and state, both good ideas. Sadly, Luther's important contribution was compromised by his position during the Peasants' War and his diatribe against the Jews.

Radios are really wonderful devices because they give us millions of options: AM or FM and Short Wave used to be the only choices - and now we have not only HD - Radio … but satellite radio, too! And this is just the vehicle for getting sound to our ears - look at all of the music options available - and talk-radio, too! The choices and options seem to be infinite. But, in my opinion, religious doctrine is really quie diferent. Let me tell you why…

By definition, this Smörgåsbord of doctrine is really chaos packaged as competing traditions of men. You can not have one man proclaim that baptism is a good thing to do if you want to do it and another man proclaim that baptism is not needed - one’s Faith Alone is saving him! Now, I guess this would not be so bad if these guys were selling used cars - but, they are not! God is One - and His One Being is Truth. God can not deceive or be deceived - and that means that competing and mutually-destructive claims can not come from God.

Freedom as Paul was telling the Galatians, is not the ability to choose evil - or be bound to the Law - but to be bound to Christ. It is the ability to choose better from good and best from better. True Good is the our doing the Will of God. This is not a chaotic storm - at least it wasn’t in Matt 16:18. Not, God the Father picked Peter from the 12 and gave him the answer to the question that Jesus put to the Apostles. Christ did not say, “Hey all of you have been pretty good - just go out and do your own thing, teach as you will and let the people decide what is truth!” There were not twleve sets of keys handed out by Christ that day at Caesarea Philippi. Christ appointed one leader - Peter - gave him the authority and the ability to bind an lose.

But, it does not end here! If ‘freedom’ as you have defined it - the ability to pick out whatever one wants and a doctrine to fit every whim - what we really have is license that is impersonating choosing good. Look what Scripure says about such a distortion and its consequences in

John 3:19-21

Romans 1:1-20

2Peter 2:15-19.

Ultimately license leads to further chaos - and the proof of that pudding is religions claiming that abortion is good, homosexual activity is to be allowed and embryonic stem cell research is our new frontier. What we have are various religions parading moral depravity is a ‘good’. And, the final exposure - the Father of Lies has been up to his old ways - and we find our selves not free but slaves to sin and the whim of every false doctrine that man can dream up. With 20,000+ flase choices floating around - it is probably making Luther’s head spin on what he started.

I submit that your premise of the wonders of Christians having “…many options in doctrine and litergy…” has been tested and found profoundly wanting. This is not Christ’s teaching and no one can really follow Christ using it.

God bless

 

[gracelife]

I am not sure what you mean by quite. Are you saying that two sacraments is not quite right (e.g., there is only 1 Sacrament or there are 3 Sacraments) or that Luther did not quite decide this matter on the Sacraments?

Tom, just as you would ask for Catholic references for our understanding of Catholicism and not a reference from a Protestant who writes about Catholicism. I was asking that you use Lutheran documents to support your statements about what Lutherans believe. The Book of Concord would be the place to start.

Regarding the Sacraments, From the Defense of the Augsburg Confession:

[1]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para1) In the Thirteenth Article the adversaries approve our statement that the Sacraments are not only marks of profession among men, as some imagine, but that they are rather signs and testimonies of God’s will toward us, through which God moves [2]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para2) hearts to believe [are not mere signs whereby men may recognize each other, as the watchword in war, livery, etc., but are efficacious signs and sure testimonies, etc.]. But here they bid us also count seven sacraments. We hold that it should be maintained that the matters and ceremonies instituted in the Scriptures, whatever the number, be not neglected. Neither do we believe it to be of any consequence, though, for the purpose of teaching, different people reckon differently, provided they still preserve aright the matters handed down in Scripture. Neither have the ancients reckoned in the same manner. [But concerning this number of seven sacraments, the fact is that the Fathers have not been uniform in their enumeration; thus also these seven ceremonies are not equally necessary.]

[3]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para3) If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not in this way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong to human authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without God’s command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps instruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to something [as a painted cross].

[4]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para4) Therefore Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God’s command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are baptized, when we eat the Lord’s body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us [5]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para5) for Christ’s sake. And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Rom. 10:17: Faith cometh by hearing. But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same, as it has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is a visible word, because the rite is received by the eyes, and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore the effect of both is the same.

[6]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para6) Confirmation and Extreme Unction are rites received from the Fathers which not even the Church requires as necessary to salvation, because they do not have God’s command. Therefore it is not useless to distinguish these rites from the former, which have God’s express command and a clear promise of grace.

bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php

End of Part 1

 

[gracelife]

Part 2, regarding Sacraments

[7]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para7) The adversaries understand priesthood not of the ministry of the Word, and administering the Sacraments to others, but they understand it as referring to sacrifice; as though in the New Testament there ought to be a priesthood like the Levitical, to sacrifice for the people, and merit the remission of sins for others.

[8]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para8) We teach that the sacrifice of Christ dying on the cross has been sufficient for the sins of the whole world, and that there is no need, besides, of other sacrifices, as though this were not sufficient for our sins. Men, accordingly, are justified not because of any other sacrifices, but because of this one sacrifice of Christ, if they believe that they have been redeemed by this sacrifice. [9]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para9) They are accordingly called priests, not in order to make any sacrifices for the people as in the Law, so that by these they may merit remission of sins for the people; but they are called to teach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments to the people. [10]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para10) Nor do we have another priesthood like the Levitical, [11]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para11) as the Epistle to the Hebrews sufficiently teaches. But if ordination be understood as applying to the ministry of the Word, we are not unwilling to call ordination a sacrament. For the ministry of the Word has God’s command and glorious promises, Rom. 1:16: The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Likewise, Is. 55:11: So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth; it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please. [12]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para12) If ordination be understood in this way, neither will we refuse to call the imposition of hands a sacrament. For the Church has the command to appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministry, and is present in the ministry [that God will preach and work through men and those who have been chosen by men]. [13]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para13) And it is of advantage, so far as can be done, to adorn the ministry of the Word with every kind of praise against fanatical men, who dream that the Holy Ghost is given not through the Word, but because of certain preparations of their own, if they sit unoccupied and silent in obscure places, waiting for illumination, as the Enthusiasts formerly taught, and the Anabaptists now teach.

[14]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para14) Matrimony was not first instituted in the New Testament, but in the beginning, immediately on the creation of the human race. It has, moreover, God’s command; it has also promises, not indeed properly pertaining to the New Testament, but pertaining rather to the bodily life. Wherefore, if any one should wish to call it a sacrament, he ought still to distinguish it from those preceding ones [the two former ones], which are properly signs of the New Testament, and testimonies of grace and the remission of sins. [15]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para15) But if marriage will have the name of sacrament for the reason that it has God’s command, other states or offices also, which have God’s command, may be called sacraments, as, for example, the magistracy.

bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php

 

[gracelife]

Part 3 Sacraments

[16]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para16) Lastly, if among the Sacraments all things ought to be numbered which have God’s command, and to which promises have been added, why do we not add prayer, which most truly can be called a sacrament? For it has both God’s command and very many promises; and if placed among the Sacraments, as though in a more eminent place, it would invite men to pray. [17]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para17) Alms could also be reckoned here, and likewise afflictions, which are, even themselves signs, to which God has added promises. But let us omit these things. For no prudent man will strive greatly concerning the number or the term, if only those objects still be retained which have God’s command and promises.

[18]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para18) It is still more needful to understand how the Sacraments are to be used. Here we condemn the whole crowd of scholastic doctors, who teach that the Sacraments confer grace ex opere operato, without a good disposition on the part of the one using them, provided he do not place a hindrance in the way. This is absolutely a Jewish opinion, to hold that we are justified by a ceremony, without a good disposition of the heart, i.e., without faith. And yet this impious and pernicious opinion [19]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para19) is taught with great authority throughout the entire realm of the Pope. Paul contradicts this, and denies, Rom. 4:9, that Abraham was justified by circumcision, but asserts that circumcision was a sign presented for exercising faith. Thus we teach that in the use of the Sacraments faith ought to be added, which should believe these promises, and receive the promised things, there offered in the Sacrament. [20]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para20) And the reason is plain and thoroughly grounded. [This is a certain and true use of the holy Sacrament, on which Christian hearts and consciences may risk to rely.] The promise is useless unless it is received by faith. But the Sacraments are the signs [and seals] of the promises. Therefore, in the use of the Sacraments faith ought to be added, so that, if any one use the Lord’s Supper, he use it thus. Because this is a Sacrament of the New Testament, as Christ clearly says, he ought for this very reason to be confident that what is promised in the New Testament, namely, the free remission of sins, is offered him. And let him receive this by faith, let him comfort his alarmed conscience, and know that these testimonies are not fallacious, but as sure as though [and still surer than if] God by a new miracle would declare from heaven that it was His will to grant forgiveness. But of what advantage would these miracles and promises be to an unbeliever? [21]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para21) And here we speak of special faith which believes the present promise, not only that which in general believes that God exists, but which believes that the remission of sins is offered. [22]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para22) This use of the Sacrament consoles godly and alarmed minds.

[23]](http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_12_sacraments.php#para23) Moreover, no one can express in words what abuses in the Church this fanatical opinion concerning the opus operatum, without a good disposition on the part of the one using the Sacraments, has produced. Hence the infinite profanation of the Masses; but of this we shall speak below. Neither can a single letter be produced from the old writers which in this matter favors the scholastics. Yea, Augustine says the contrary, that the faith of the Sacrament, and not the Sacrament, justifies. And the declaration of Paul is well known, Rom. 10:10: With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.